Search

Introduction This chapter contributes to an exploration of the themes that drive this volume by analyzing the racial dimensions of woman battering. Part I introduces the problem, defines its scope, differentiates common domestic violence from the pattern of coercive control, and provides an overview of its significance. Drawing on population surveys primarily, Part II summarizes racial differences in the rates of domestic violence as well as in trends, demographics, dynamics, consequences, and in the response to interventions. Part III focuses on explanations for the unique configuration of battering in black couples, contrasting accounts that emphasize family pathology to cultural, historical, and political explanations. The conclusion considers possible sources of resilience and prevention in the black community. The Scope of the Problem Defining the Problem. In common parlance, domestic violence, family violence, spouse abuse, and woman battering are used interchangeably to refer to physical assaults in a family setting. Domestic violence statutes differ from state to state in which types of relationships and which types of violence they cover, although they universally focus on discrete acts of harm. In fact, in most relationships domestic violence is ongoing, not episodic, and is not literally “domestic,” because most victims are not married to and/or living with the persons who are hurting them. More important, the most devastating context of domestic violence involves a pattern of coercion and control where the physical assaults prohibited by law may be relatively minor.

Of all the problems besetting the poor inner-city black community, none is more pressing than that of interpersonal violence and aggression. This phenomenon wreaks havoc daily on the lives of community residents and increasingly spills over into downtown and residential middle-class areas. Muggings, burglaries, carjackings, and drugrelated shootings, all of which may leave their victims or innocent bystanders dead, are now common enough to concern all urban and many suburban residents. The inclination to violence springs from the circumstances of life among the ghetto poor – the lack of jobs that pay a living wage, the stigma of race, the fallout from rampant drug use and drug trafficking, and the resulting alienation and lack of hope for the future. Simply living in such an environment places young people at special risk of falling victim to aggressive behavior. Although there are often forces in the community which can counteract the negative influences – by far the most powerful is a strong, loving, “decent” (as inner-city residents put it) family committed to middle-class values – the despair is pervasive enough to have spawned an oppositional culture, that of “the streets,” whose norms are often consciously opposed to those of mainstream society. These two orientations – decent and street – socially organize the community, and their coexistence has important consequences for residents, particularly for children growing up in the inner city.